DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Both claims 10 and 28 recite a “robust advanced imaging metrology target.” The meaning of “robust” is not defined in the specification as filed, and “robust advanced imaging metrology target” does not appear to be a term known in the art. For purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as an advanced imaging metrology target with some part of the target is described as “robust.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 24-29, 31, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coene (TW 202129430 A) in view of Feler (US 20210072650 A1).
Claim 1: Coene teaches an optical metrology system, comprising:
one or more illumination optics configured to direct one or more pairs of mutually-coherent illumination beams to an optical metrology target on a sample in accordance with a metrology recipe (Fig. 1, radiation source SO and Fig. 7, illumination beams IB1 and IB2),
wherein the optical metrology target in accordance with the metrology recipe includes one or more sets of periodic features associated with two or more different lithographic exposures (pg 6, subsequent exposure),
wherein the illumination beams in a respective pair of the mutually-coherent illumination beams are directed to the sample with opposing azimuth incidence angles and a common altitude incidence angle (Fig. 7, illumination beams IB1 and IB2 and pg 14),
wherein the opposing azimuth incidence angles of the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams are azimuthally rotated with respect to the one or more measurement directions (Fig. 7, illumination beams IB1 and IB2);
an imaging sub-system including an objective lens configured to provide dark-field imaging of the optical metrology target on a detector located at a field plane conjugate to the optical metrology target in accordance with the metrology recipe (Fig. 7, objective lens OB, pg 15),
wherein an image […] interference pattern generated by interference of a single non-zero diffraction order of light from each of the illumination beams within a particular pair of the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams (pg 14);
and a controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to generate one or more optical metrology measurements along the one or more measurement directions based on one or more images of the optical metrology target received from the detector (pg 7, determining properties).
Coene does not teach, but Feler does teach, wherein the one or more sets of periodic features have periodicity along one or more measurement directions, or that one or more sets of periodic features includes a sinusoidal interference pattern (Fig. 2A, showing periodic features in different directions and [0007], [0034] - Moiré pattern).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the periodicity, as taught by Feler, in the system as taught by Coene, because different rotations of the pattern would allow for more precise measurement, as it would allow for equally precise measurements along each axis (since received diffraction will be in different directions depending on pattern direction).
Claim 19: Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 2: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1, wherein the objective lens collects at least some zero-order side lobes from the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams, wherein the imaging sub-system further includes one or more blockers to prevent at least some of the zero-order side lobes collected by the objective lens from reaching the detector (pg 12).
Claim 20: Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 2. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 4: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1, wherein the objective lens collects at least some zero-order side lobes from the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams, wherein the program instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to generate the one or more optical metrology measurements by: filtering one or more signals associated with interference between the zero-order side lobes collected by the objective lens and any of the non-zero diffraction orders from the one or more images to generate one or more filtered images; and generating the one or more optical metrology measurements based on the one or more filtered images (pg 25).
Claim 22: Claim 22 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 4. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 6: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Feler does teach, wherein the one or more sets of periodic features on the optical metrology target comprise: a first-layer grating on a first layer of the sample; and a second-layer grating on a second layer of the sample, wherein the first and second-layer gratings are in non-overlapping regions of the sample, wherein the first and second-layer gratings have a common pitch, wherein a corresponding one of the one or more optical metrology measurements is based on a relative imaged shift between the first and second-layer gratings (Abstract, differences between each layer).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detected shift between layers, as taught by Feler, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because this allows for misalignment between layers to be measured (Feler, abstract).
Claim 24: Claim 24 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 6. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 7: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of Claim 1. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Feler does teach, wherein the optical metrology target comprises: an advanced imaging metrology (AIM) target ([0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AIM target, as taught by Feler, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because AIM targets are well known in the art to yield predictable results.
Claim 25: Claim 25 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 7. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 8: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 6, wherein the single non-zero diffraction order of light from each of the mutually-coherent illumination beams comprises: first-order diffraction from each of the mutually-coherent illumination beams (pg 14).
Claim 26: Claim 26 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 8. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 9: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sets of periodic features on the optical metrology target comprise: a first Moiré structure comprising: a first-layer grating with a first pitch on a first layer of the sample; and a second-layer grating with a second pitch on a second layer of the sample, wherein the first and second-layer gratings are formed in a first overlapping region of the sample; and a second Moiré structure comprising: a third grating with the second pitch on the first layer of the sample; and a fourth grating with the first pitch on the second layer of the sample, wherein the third and fourth gratings are formed in a second overlapping region of the sample (Feler [0007]).
Claim 27: Claim 27 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 9. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 10: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of Claim 9. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Feler does teach, wherein the optical metrology target comprises: an robust advanced imaging metrology (r-AIM) target ([0037], [0126] - robust).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the r-AIM target, as taught by Feler, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because AIM targets are well known in the art to yield predictable results.
Claim 28: Claim 28 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 10. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 11: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 9, wherein the single non-zero diffraction order of light from each of the mutually-coherent illumination beams comprises: a Moiré diffraction order of light from each of the mutually-coherent illumination beams associated with sequential diffraction from the first-layer grating and the second-layer grating (Feler [0117] and [0034]).
Claim 29: Claim 29 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 11. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 13: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1, wherein illumination beams in a respective one of the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams are directed to the optical metrology target simultaneously (pg 15).
Claim 31: Claim 31 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 13. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 14: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1, wherein the illumination beams in a respective one of the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams are directed to the optical metrology target sequentially (pg 15).
Claim 32: Claim 32 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 14. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 17: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical metrology measurements comprise: overlay measurements (pg 16, overlay error).
Claim 35: Claim 35 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 18: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical metrology measurements comprise: scanner alignment measurements (pg 6, aligning radiation beam and patterning device).
Claim 36: Claim 36 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 37: Coene teaches an optical metrology system, comprising: a controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to implement a metrology recipe by:
generating one or more optical metrology measurements along one or more measurement directions based on one or more images of an optical metrology target (abstract),
wherein the optical metrology target includes one or more sets of periodic features associated with two or more different lithographic exposures (pg 6, subsequent exposure),
wherein the one or more images are generated by: directing one or more pairs of mutually-coherent illumination beams to the optical metrology target on a sample wherein the illumination beams in a respective pair of the mutually-coherent illumination beams are directed to the sample with opposing azimuth incidence angles and a common altitude incidence angle (Fig. 7, illumination beams IB1 and IB2 and pg 14),
wherein the opposing azimuth incidence angles of the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams are azimuthally rotated with respect to the one or more measurement directions (Fig. 7, illumination beams IB1 and IB2),
wherein an image of a particular one of the one or more sets of periodic features includes an […] interference pattern generated by interference of a single non-zero diffraction order of light from each of the illumination beams within a particular pair of the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams (pg 14);
filtering one or more signals associated with interference between collected zero-order side lobes and any of the non-zero diffraction orders from the one or more images to generate one or more filtered images; and generating the one or more optical metrology measurements based on the one or more filtered images (pg 7, determining properties).
Coene does not teach, but Feler does teach, wherein the one or more sets of periodic features have periodicity along one or more measurement directions, or that one or more sets of periodic features includes a sinusoidal interference pattern (Fig. 2A, showing periodic features in different directions and [0007], [0034] - Moiré pattern).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the periodicity, as taught by Feler, in the system as taught by Coene, because different rotations of the pattern would allow for more precise measurement, as it would allow for equally precise measurements along each axis (since received diffraction will be in different directions depending on pattern direction).
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coene (TW 202129430 A) in view of Feler (US 20210072650 A1), as applied to Claims 2 and 20 above, and further in view of Hill (US 20180031424 A1).
Claim 3: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of Claim 2. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Hill does teach wherein the one or more blockers are located in opposing quadrants of a pupil plane of the imaging sub-system ([0005] – isolating light within quadrants and restricting/blocking light in quadrants).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light blocking quadrants, as taught by Hill, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because this allows for easier filtering of diffraction orders, as separate processing is not needed.
Claim 21: Claim 21 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 3. Thus see rejection above.
Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coene (TW 202129430 A) in view of Feler (US 20210072650 A1), as applied to Claims 4 and 22 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 112034457 A).
Claim 5: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of Claim 4. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Yang does teach, wherein the one or more signals in the one or more images associated with interference between the zero-order side lobes collected by the objective lens and any of the non-zero diffraction orders include interference fringes along a different direction than interference between the non-zero diffraction orders, wherein filtering the one or more signals comprises filtering the one or more signals based on fringe direction (pg 11, filtering based on interference fringe direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filtering, as taught by Yang, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because, as Yang teaches, this improves estimation precision (abstract).
Claim 23: Claim 23 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 5. Thus see rejection above.
Claims 12 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coene (TW 202129430 A) in view of Feler (US 20210072650 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Hill (US 20230259040 A1).
The applied reference (Hill) has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim 12: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of Claim 1. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Hill does teach, wherein a number of the one or more pairs of the mutually-coherent illumination beams is equal to a number of the one or more sets of periodic features in accordance with the metrology recipe ([0024], Claim 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the number of mutually coherent beams, as taught by Hill, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because this would allow for redundancy in case one set of mutually coherent beams is defective.
Claim 30: Claim 30 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 12. Thus see rejection above.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 15, 16, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coene (TW 202129430 A) in view of Feler (US 20210072650 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Shchegrov (US 20190212281 A1).
Claim 15: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of Claim 1. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Shchegrov does teach, wherein the optical metrology target has outer dimensions smaller than 20 micrometers ([0096]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metrology target size, as taught by Shchegrov, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because, as Shchegrov teaches, this allows for measurement of critical dimension targets ([0096]).
Claim 33: Claim 33 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 15. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 16: Coene, as modified, teaches the optical metrology system of Claim 1. Coene, as modified, does not teach, but Shchegrov does teach, wherein the optical metrology target has outer dimensions smaller than 8 micrometers ([0096]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metrology target size, as taught by Shchegrov, in the system as taught by Coene, as modified, because, as Shchegrov teaches, this allows for measurement of critical dimension targets ([0096]).
Claim 34: Claim 34 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 16. Thus, see rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights